Urth Digest, Vol 51, Issue 44
The Urth list — 1 messages, 1 voices, 20 Nov 2008
https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5232

Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright
in each message remains with the person who wrote it.

Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original
archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than
retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.

==============================================================================

David Stockhoff — 20 Nov 2008, 21:15

Let me clarify my thought.

I meant that it's almost as though Wolfe read Tertullian (or the debate 
he was part of) and and responded to him by deliberately constructing a 
character according to those severe Christian prohibitions /as though 
they were precise specifications/: a Christ figure who is everything 
Christ's followers cannot be. Why these specifications and not others?

I think this goes beyond "sin" and repugnance, neither of which is 
mentioned here. It's a question of temporal  authority vs spiritual 
authority, at least. But we knew that.

> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:54:21 -0500
> From: "John Watkins" <john.watkins04 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: (urth) Severian as reverse Christ (or something)
> To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
> Message-ID:
> 	<93d4039f0811201154v58204796p2fadecf2753008b9 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> 
> Naturally it's applicable to Severian.  Wolfe makes it pretty clear, I
> think, that he finds Severian's profession to be repugnant.
> 
> Severian's journey, unlike the journey of Christ, is out of great sin into,
> well, maybe not exactly virtue, but into lesser sin.  He's a better person
> at the end than at the beginning.
> 
> 
> On 11/20/08, David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> wrote:
>   

> > Recent lurker, first-time poster. Please excuse any formatting offenses!
> > 
> > As part of blog discussion on another topic, someone sent me a link
> > regarding the historical development of Catholic positions on torture:
> > 
> > http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html
> > 
> > And the following caught my eye (the middle part):
> > 
> > 
> > *A1. Tertullian (3rd century).* This early representative of patristic
> > thought follows the radically pacifist tendency of not a few Christians at
> > that time who tended to take the Gospel's 'counsels of perfection' as
> > universally binding precepts. Certainly, in Tertullian's judgment, any
> > complicity in torture — either ordering it or personally applying it — is
> > definitely ruled out for a disciple of Jesus. Arguing that no soldier, after
> > converting to Christianity, should continue in the army, especially given
> > its pagan character, he asks rhetorically,
> > 
> > "[S]hall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become
> > him even to sue at law? And shall *he* apply the chain, and the prison, *and
> > the torture*, and the punishment, who is not the avenger even of his own
> > wrongs?"*1 <http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html#FN_1>*
> > 
> > In similar vein, discussing "what offices a Christian man may hold", he
> > refers to a recent case wherein a Church member had the opportunity to
> > receive high public office as a magistrate. Tertullian argues that it would
> > be morally impossible for this man to satisfy both the Gospel's demands and
> > those of Roman law, for that would require him to abstain not only from all
> > public pagan sacrifices, oaths, etc., but also from "sitting in judgment on
> > anyone's life or character, . . . neither condemning nor fore-condemning;
> > binding no one, imprisoning *or torturing no one*".*2<http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html#FN_2>
> > * These are the earliest known explicit Christian statements on the
> > morality of torture.
> > 
> > 
> > I have no argument to make here---I merely find the references to binding
> > etc.very applicable to Severian. It's almost a summary of his daily routine.
> > (Recall that "lictor" means "he who binds.")
> > 
> > Can Christ not be a Christian?
> > 
> > David Stockhoff
> > 
> > ------------------------------
> > 
> >     

------------------------------------------------------------------------------